Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564792
label
Issue Papers - Agriculture
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564792
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Agriculture
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564792
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
90353ffe88d244dd
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - Agriculture
Box: P30
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
fill
STATEMENT ON FOREMOST-LUCKY COURT ACTION
The California Department of Agriculture has filed a complaint
against Foremost-McKesson, Inc., San Francisco, and Lucky
Stores, Inc., San Leandro. The complaint was filed Monday,
July 15, in Superior Court, San Francisco.
The complaint calls for an injunction and civil penalties.
The civil penalties sought amount to $1,027,000 against each
defendant. The injunction is for violations of the California
Milk Stabilization Act involving sales of milk below established
minimum prices.
The complaint alleges that Foremost and Lucky entered into an
illegal agreement in October, 1965, under which Foremost gave
rebates to Lucky on sales of milk. The sales were made at
established legal prices but the rebates resulted in reducing
these prices below the established minimums, in violation of
the California Agricultural Code. The rebates amounted to a
total of about $4,400,000 to approximately 175 Lucky stores
in California.
The Agricultural Code provides for civil penalties of $500 for
each violation. The $1,027,000 in penalties sought from each
defendant cover violations alleged to have been committed in
the period from July, 1967, to date. If the courts award
these penalties to the Department, the money will go into the
milk fund, which is used to administer and enforce California's
milk laws.
BACKGROUND
Although this complaint is of much greater magnitude than other
legal actions taken against violators of California milk laws,
it is by no means an isolated case. Rather, it is part of the
Department's continuing program of enforcing California's milk
laws.
For example, the Department closed 33 civil actions against
milk law transgressors in the period July 1, 1967, through
June 30, 1968.
As of July 1, 1968, we have ten actions pending for alleged
violations of milk laws. Four more legal actions are in the
process of being filed.
In addition, the Department is presently in the process of
transmitting 28 legal actions to the Attorney General for
filing. All of these actions have resulted from Department
investigations into practices within the milk industry in
violation of the California Milk Stabilization Act.
agree
file
Excerpts from "A Summary of the Imperial
Valley 160-Acre Limitation Case"
issued by Research 2/67
Imperial growers feel that the Valley's economic future is
threatened by a lawsuit filed against the IID in the United
States District Court in San Diego by U.S. Attorney Edwin L.
Miller, Jr., on Jan. 11, 1966, on behalf of Acting Attorney
General Ramsey Clark.
The suit seeks to enforce the 160-acre limitation (160AL)
written into the 1902 Reclamation Act. The average holding in
the Imperial reportedly runs around 1,000 acres. Accordingly,
many growers would be forced to sell holdings in excess of
160-acres--and (if the letter of the law is followed) at pre-
irrigation land values.
As a result of the suit, Imperial real estate brokers claim
they cannot sell land, values are depressed and the assessor has
difficulty assessing value. Representatives of Valley growers
contend that the 160 AL is utterly uneconomic in this day of
factories-on-the-farm, and that the Imperial could revert back
to wasteland if the 160 AL is enforced. at great loss to the
nation's food producing capacity. (page 2)
Representatives of Imperial farmers claim that the 160 AL
does not apply for the following reasons: (1) Perfected vested
water rights existed before the 1902 Act was passed, (2) The Im-
perial was never designated a Reclamation Project under the 1902
Act, (3) the 1928 Boulder Act did not specifically apply the 160 AL
to any but government-owned lands in the area, (4) the 1932 contract
between IID and the government did not include the 160 AL, and (5)
-2-
a letter from Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur, dated
Feb. 24, 1933, notified the IID of his opinion, that the 160 AL
did not apply to privately owned land in the IID. (page 5)
In summation, it would appear that the IID's legal case is
based upon a 1933 letter from the Secretary of the Interior (not
a formal legal opinion) which they promoted in emergency circum-
stances; that the Secretary relied heavily upon exclusion of the
160 AL from the Boulder Canyon Act (repeal by exclusion, which may
not legally follow); that the IID has consistently opposed the
160 AL, did not want it included in the Act or its contract; and
that the IID and its allies have sought to color the Act, its
contract and Wilbur's letter in accordance with their own wishes
rather than any objective analysis of the facts and the legal
ground.
The moral case is another matter. Imperial growers have
built up an agricultural empire of great value to the state and
to the country; surely, their productive contribution deserves
consideration. If their feeling of insulation from the provisions
of the 160 AL was at least in part wishful thinking (encouraged, at
least on occasion, by the government), some allowance must be
made for the time which passed before the government finally got
around to busting their dream.
In conclusion, the question has been raised: Why now? How
are the nation's interests to be served by the current Federal suit
against the IID?
-3-
Assistant Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Holum reportedly
explained the government's action as dedicated entirely to the
proposition of enforcing the letter of the law. No specific
advantage was claimed in earrying out "the intent of the reclama-
tion law" nor any specific gain for "the government's interest"
(quoting the language of the government's complaint).
The suggestion has been raised among California farmers that
the suit is an attempt by Secretary of Interior Udall to divert
Colorado River water from the Imperial to Arizona. While clamping
down on the Imperial, Udall is reportedly entering into 25-year
leases of government land in Arizona and exempting the leaseholders
from the 160 AL.
According to reports, more than 42,000 acres on the Colorado
River Indian Reservation near Parker, Ariz. have been leased, and
the total is expected to be 107,000 acres eventually. The lease-
holders received a guarantee of "irrigation water in the amount of
not less than five (5) acre-feet per acre. 11 Some are allowed eight-
acre-feet per acre.
The case of Bruce Church is cited. He reportedly owns con-
siderable Imperial property which he would be forced to sell under
the 160 AL. However, he has leased 6,400 acres of Arizona land and
received guarantee of water. (page 11)